Biosecurity on Cattle Farms: A Study in North-West England

Few studies have considered in detail the range of biosecurity practices undertaken on cattle farms, particularly within the UK. In this study, 56 cattle farmers in a 100 km² area of north-west England were questioned regarding their on-farm biosecurity practices, including those relating to animal movements, equipment sharing and companies and contractors visiting the farms.There was great variation between farms in terms of the type of, and extent to which, biosecurity was carried out. For example, the majority of farmers did not isolate stock bought onto the farm, but a small proportion always isolated stock. Many farmers administered treatments post-movement, primarily vaccinations and anthelmintics, but very few farms reported carrying out any health checks after moving animals on. In addition, there appeared to be much variation in the amount of biosecurity carried out by the different companies and contractors visiting the farms. Deadstock collectors and contracted animal waste spreaders, although likely to have a high potential for contact with infectious agents, were reported to infrequently disinfect themselves and their vehicles.These findings suggest that although certain biosecurity practices are undertaken, many are carried out infrequently or not at all. This may be due to many factors, including cost (in time and money), lack of proven efficacies of practices and lack of relevant education of veterinary surgeons, producers and other herd health specialists. Further research exploring the reasons for the lack of uptake is imperative if preventive medicine is to be utilised fully by the farming industry

Oxytocin versus carbetocin administered to cows after uncomplicated calvings and subsequent fertility

BestBETs for Vets are generated by the Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine at the University of Nottingham to help answer specific questions and assist in clinical decision making. Although evidence is often limited, they aim to find, present and draw conclusions from the best available evidence, using a standardised framework. A more detailed description of how BestBETs for Vets are produced was published in VR, April 4, 2015, vol 176, pp 354-356

Diagnostic testing in first opinion small animal consultations

DIAGNOSTIC testing is a vital part of the decision-making process, which aims to increase diagnostic certainty, assist management and treatment decisions and provide a prognosis (Radostits and others 2000). A wide range of tests are available, with variable accuracy, expense and risk to the patient, but it is currently unclear how veterinary surgeons are making decisions about which tests to carry out. Understanding the decision-making process is vital in order to ensure that the decisions made during the consultation are based on the best relevant evidence. However, before decision-making around diagnostic testing can be understood, it is neccessary to know which tests are performed most frequently. This may be useful for veterinary practices, for example, when making business decisions surrounding diagnostic equipment and in-house training, and could also help direct veterinary curricula and research. The aim of this study was to describe the diagnostic tests commonly performed in a convenience sample of first opinion small animal consultations. Data collection took place over 16 weeks (two weeks each in eight different practices) as part of data gathered for a larger project (Robinson and others 2014a). A previously developed data collection tool (Robinson and others 2014a) was used to record consultation data by direct observation. Data were recorded on all health problems discussed, including the reason for presentation (the presenting problem) and all additional problems discussed (non-presenting problems). For each health problem discussed, the type of diagnostic test(s) was recorded by selecting one option from: None; In-consultation; Post-consultation; Both. Clinical examination, as defined by Robinson and others (2014b), was not considered to be a diagnostic

Investigating preventive-medicine consultations in first-opinion small-animal practice in the United Kingdom using direct observation

Preventive-medicine consultations account for a large proportion of the veterinary caseload and previous research has suggested these consultations are fundamentally different from those in which the animal is presented for a specific health problem. There has been recent controversy around some aspects of preventive medicine for cats and dogs, and the full health benefits of the preventive-medicine consultation remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare characteristics of the consultation and the problems discussed during the consultation between preventive-medicine consultations and other types of consultations. Data were gathered during direct observation of small-animal consultations in seven first-opinion practices in the United Kingdom. Data collected included type of clinical examination performed, patient signalment, and details of all problems discussed (including whether the problem was presenting or non-presenting, new or pre-existing, who had raised the problem, body system affected and whether an action was taken). A two-level multivariable logistic-regression model was developed, with canine and feline patients at Level 1 nested within consulting veterinary surgeons at Level 2, and a binary outcome variable of preventive-medicine consultation versus specific health-problem consultation. A total of 1807 patients were presented, of which 690 (38.2%) presented for a preventive-medicine consultation. Dogs were the most frequently presented species (n = 1168; 64.6%) followed by cats (n = 510; 28.2%), rabbits (n = 86; 4.8%) and patients of other species (n = 43; 2.4%). The five variables remaining in the multi-level model were whether multiple patients were presented, patient age, clinical examination type, weighing and number of problems discussed. Species, breed, sex, neutering status and practice did not remain in the final model. Many non-presenting problems, including both preventive-medicine problems and specific-health problems, were discussed and acted upon during all types of consultations. Dental and behavioural non-presenting problems were discussed more frequently during preventive-medicine consultations compared with specific health-problem consultations. Preventive-medicine consultations represent an opportunity for veterinary surgeons to discuss other aspects of preventive medicine, and to detect and manage new and ongoing health problems. A greater evidence base is needed to understand whether detecting and managing underlying disease during the preventive-medicine consultation has a positive impact on lifelong patient health and welfare

Measuring the success of canine and feline preventative healthcare consultations: a systematic review

Preventative healthcare consultations account for a large proportion of the veterinary caseload. This novel study is the first to methodically review all literature on canine and feline preventative healthcare consultations. Previous research has found these consultations to be different from health problem consultations in terms of communication style and content. Identifying relevant evidence and previously validated methods of measuring the success of these consultations will be useful when implementing strategies for optimisation. The aim of this study was to identify and assess the quality of existing literature which describes and/or measures the success of preventative healthcare consultations.Database searches of CAB Abstracts and Medline were conducted to identify published literature. Google searches were then conducted to identify any additional published or grey literature. Results were systematically screened to determine whether the returned sources were about cats and/or dogs, whether they related to preventative healthcare, and whether they described and/or measured the success of preventative healthcare consultations. For primary research citations which only described preventative healthcare consultations, data were extracted on the aspects of the consultations described. For citations which additionally measured the success of the consultations, the measures used, sampling technique, key results and key weaknesses were also extracted. Of 17538 citations identified in total during the database searches, a total of seven relevant primary research citations were identified. All of these citations described aspects of the preventative healthcare consultation, such as consultation length, health problems discussed, actions taken and communication style. Only one primary research citation measured success of the consultation, using veterinarian satisfaction to determine success. In addition, 30 narrative citations, including expert opinion pieces, textbooks, guidelines without transparent methodology and conference presentations were identified. Google searches identified 224 relevant narrative citations, and five of the seven primary research citations identified by the database searches, but did not identify any additional relevant primary research citations. The results suggest that, despite accounting for around a third of all consultations, there is relatively little evidence describing preventative healthcare consultations and only one measure of success has been described for these consultations. This presents potential challenges when implementing strategies to optimise these consultations, as measures which are useful and relevant to veterinary practice should first be identified. Identifying useful measures of success will allow future strategies designed to maximise the benefits of these consultations to be meaningfully assessed for efficacy

Top 5 Tips for Reading a Veterinary Scientific Study

Results from scientific research can help provide optimal care. Daily decisions should lead to effective diagnostic procedures and therapeutic interventions with optimal risk:benefit ratios. It is therefore important to be able to select and evaluate scientific literature relevant to the field and/or patient. Critical evaluation aids in identification of strengths and weaknesses of a study and its relevance and validity in the clinic1; relevant information for critical evaluation is typically found in the methods and results sections

Evaluating the role of surgical sterilisation in canine rabies control: A systematic review of impact and outcomes

© 2020 Collinson et al. Current recommendations for the elimination of canine-mediated human rabies focus on mass dog vaccination as the most feasible and cost-effective strategy. However, attempts to control rabies are often combined with canine surgical sterilisation programmes. The added value of sterilisation is widely debated. A systematic review was undertaken to compare the outcomes and impact of vaccination and sterilisation programmes with vaccination only programmes. A systematic search of three electronic databases (CAB Abstracts, Med-line and Global Health) and grey literature was performed. From 8696 abstracts found, 5554 unique studies were identified, and 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight described vaccination only programmes and eight described vaccination and sterilisation programmes. Indicators of impact measured were dog bites and/or doses of post-exposure prophylaxis administered; numbers of dog and/or human rabies cases; dog population demographic changes; changes in health and welfare of dogs, and indicators related to human behaviour change. The studies were contextually very diverse, programmes being implemented were complex, and there was variation in measurement and reporting of key indicators. There-fore, it was difficult to compare the two types of intervention, and impossible to make an evaluation of the role of sterilisation, using this evidence. Given the large number of vaccination and sterilisation programmes conducted globally, the lack of studies available for review highlights a gap in data collection or reporting, essential for impact assessment. There are several knowledge gaps concerning the impact of the sterilisation component alone, as well as subsequent effects on rabies transmission and control. Prospective studies comparing the outcomes and impact of the two interventions would be required in order to establish any additional contribution of sterilisation, as well as the underlying mechanisms driving any changes. In the absence of such evidence, the priority for rabies control objectives should be implementation of mass vaccination, as currently recommended by the World Health Organisation

Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a critical appraisal (CA) tool that addressed study design and reporting quality as well as the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies (CSSs). In addition, the aim was to produce a help document to guide the non-expert user through the tool. Design: An initial scoping review of the published literature and key epidemiological texts was undertaken prior to the formation of a Delphi panel to establish key components for a CA tool for CSSs. A consensus of 80% was required from the Delphi panel for any component to be included in the final tool. Results: An initial list of 39 components was identified through examination of existing resources. An international Delphi panel of 18 medical and veterinary experts was established. After 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was developed by consensus and consisted of 20 components. A detailed explanatory document was also developed with the tool, giving expanded explanation of each question and providing simple interpretations and examples of the epidemiological concepts being examined in each question to aid non-expert users. Conclusions: CA of the literature is a vital step in evidence synthesis and therefore evidence-based decision-making in a number of different disciplines. The AXIS tool is therefore unique and was developed in a way that it can be used across disciplines to aid the inclusion of CSSs in systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical decision-making

A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research

Background: Wider adoption of reporting guidelines by veterinary journals could improve the quality of published veterinary research. The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and views of veterinary Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines, identify the policies of their journals, and determine their information needs. Editors-in-Chief of 185 journals on the contact list for the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) were surveyed in April 2012 using an online questionnaire which contained both closed and open questions. Results: The response rate was 36.8% (68/185). Thirty-six of 68 editors (52.9%) stated they knew what a reporting guideline was before receiving the questionnaire. Editors said they had found out about reporting guidelines primarily through articles in other journals, via the Internet and through their own journal. Twenty of 57 respondents (35.1%) said their journal referred to reporting guidelines in its instructions to authors. CONSORT, REFLECT, and ARRIVE were the most frequently cited. Forty-four of 68 respondents (68.2%) believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals. Qualitative analysis of the open questions revealed that lack of knowledge, fear, resistance to change, and difficulty in implementation were perceived as barriers to the adoption of reporting guidelines by journals. Editors suggested that reporting guidelines be promoted through communication and education of the veterinary community, with roles for the IAVE and universities. Many respondents believed a consensus policy on guideline implementation was needed for veterinary journals. Conclusions: Further communication and education about reporting guidelines for editors, authors and reviewers has the potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future